I am about to multi class for the first time in the campaign I'm playingoing now. I'm a lvl 8 ranger and I really don't see much that the ranger gets from now on that I really want. Also I'm in a party of 6 so min-maxing isn't that important since there are so many of us.

I'm torn between a 8 lvl dip into druid(moon) or going 12 lvls into monk(drunk monk UA) either my ranger goes down the nature path or he put his energy intI honing his body (he's already kinda a drunk...)

Quote from AdventFalling >>

I am about to multi class for the first time in the campaign I'm playingoing now. I'm a lvl 8 ranger and I really don't see much that the ranger gets from now on that I really want. Also I'm in a party of 6 so min-maxing isn't that important since there are so many of us.

I'm torn between a 8 lvl dip into druid(moon) or going 12 lvls into monk(drunk monk UA) either my ranger goes down the nature path or he put his energy intI honing his body (he's already kinda a drunk...)

Unless I can justify it in-narrative, I don't multiclass. I use the same rule now as a DM, because I focus more on the narrative aspect of the game than the game mechanics themselves.

Quote from erikaflarsen >>

Unless I can justify it in-narrative, I don't multiclass. I use the same rule now as a DM, because I focus more on the narrative aspect of the game than the game mechanics themselves.

I completely agree! What you described is definitely a narrative reason for multi-classing. I just think that, say, a sorcerer who took a few levels in barbarian would need a narrative reason beyond 'i'd like to have more HP pls' to multi-class, you know?

Quote from erikaflarsen >>

I completely agree! What you described is definitely a narrative reason for multi-classing. I just think that, say, a sorcerer who took a few levels in barbarian would need a narrative reason beyond 'i'd like to have more HP pls' to multi-class, you know?

I pretty much always multiclass at some point :)

I just noticed we got over 100 votes in this poll. Thanks everyone, getting some interesting information!

I multiclass if the character concept I have works. My main had his soul sold as a child (Warlock) then ran away to learn to fight with the magic he had (Eldritch Knight). I have a great idea for a seafaring campaign with an aasimar member of the Trade Guild who had to marry a fey (Warlock) but otherwise follows in her bloodline's path (Sorcerer). Even right now in a monster campaign I'm a former protector whose trying to rediscover his past and who betrayed him (Inquisitive Rogue), but because he was a protector, he knows just a touch of fighting skill (archery to be precise).

I also have a dragonborn Paladin, Half-elf Artificier, and Triton Barbarian concepts that don't have any multiclassing because their stories are fantastic as is (granted, in game that could change. Never know what the DM will throw at you that turns a character's world upside-down...).

I know I am late to this conversation. And, in fact, this is my first post on this forum. However, I really felt the desire to jump in and say something. 

I've been playing DnD for almost 20 years. I've played from 2.0 through 5E. (I tried 4e for about 3 game sessions and went back to 3.x/Pathfinder) Nearly every character I have ever played was multi-classed in some way, shape, or form. In 3.x multi-classing was nearly impossible to avoid if you wanted to get a Prestige Class (and required more technical proficiency in the game). If you were only playing with the core rules, that would be no biggy, only a few PrC's to choose from. Yet after a decade or two of putting out materials for 3.X there were tons of PrC's and tons of multi-class options. It was absurd the things people were trying to pull off, and a lot of DM's reigned in on players multi-classing for meta-game thinking and trying to pull off general cheese. 

On the flip side of that... playing a character in a party has both an RP and Mechanics aspect. The three phases being, encounters, exploration, and socialization. DnD provides mechanics for all phases. In and out of combat a character should fill a role within the party. A party needs a face, a sneak, a tracker/navigator, and a know-it-all, in the same way it needs a tank, DPR, controller and healer. Very rarely does a party pick a set of 4 classes that allows them to fill all 8 roles. THAT, as a DM, makes my life harder. I can't put specific types of encounters or situations in front of them with out risk of utter failure. I need to present players with problems to solve, but they shouldn't be insurmountable. Multi-classing, from a mechanical stand point, allows players to pick up levels in other classes that might allow them expand the number of roles they fill. Or give a different flavor or style to their combat approach. 

For example, right now I am playing (a treat I rarely get) a 10th level 5E character. I'm in a party with a rogue type and a bard. They needed a tank to survive. I'm playing Cleric 4/ Sorc4/ Paladin 2. I rolled some great stats to start so being too MAD wasn't a concern. The multiclass caster rules for 5e mean I have up to 5th level spell slots, though I don't know a spell higher than 2nd level (I can pump the ones I know up to 5th level).  I can also smite the ever loving crap out of stuff, and quicken and twin cantrips/ touch spells. I have the Sentinal feat and the War Caster feat. I'm playing a Mountain Dwarf (+2 Dex & Con + Tool Proficiency-Smith) who was struck by lightning and went off to chase storms after some fever dream given to him by the Storm God Kord (Tempest Domain), giving him the Hermit Background (Herbalist Kit + Skills). I took the storm sorcerer origin as well from Swords of the Coast, which made sense both thematically and mechanically. (Most people think he is a bit crazy/rude) Basically, I use metamagic to fuel low level touch spells and attack cantrips and smite and have a mass ton of spell slots to do it with. I can latch onto a creature and never let them move out of my range again with battlefield control options. All of the class features of a multi-class character need to be additive. I have the best perception in my group, I have easy access to the most knowledge skills, I can heal, remove some conditions, and Tank with some of my own battle field control. And I craft healing potions and arms and armor for my team. Multi-classing is about seeing a vision for your character and building horizontally in a typically vertical mechanic. 

Another example, the "rogue type" playing in my game. Rogue (Ass) 3/Fighter 2/Artificer (Gunsmith) 5 [UA]... He crits often, and for a lot of damage (6d6+4 x 2) Plus he makes one-use magic items and has ALL of the sneak and dungeon skills. His backstory is that his High Elf was a spy from another country from which he is now an expatriot and fled to the "newly discovered" continent on which our campaign takes place (DM's own world). So he's from the sneaky side of the military, which easily explains his rogue/fighter.  And, after we taught him how to make traps, OOC, he was constantly "tinkering" in his off time. With his background as a High Elf he had a touch of magic to him and the Artificer came naturally. 

I guess my point is... If you're creative enough to build a character in this method with the RAW, then you're probably also creative enough to hook a backstory and an RP reasoning into the choices you make. When I am DM'ing a game, I always tell my players to build backwards. Come up with a vision of what you want you're character to be like at Level 20, then hunt down the mechanics that get you to that vision. You'll never have a problem with a RP reason to multi-class. What I have found is some very different and interesting characters with a collection of skills and abilities that make them far more unique than any single subclass could hope to provide.

As a disclaimer: I have seen people fail so horribly at this it becomes laughable and they end up with a truly useless character that is just begging to be killed off. Though it is usually a fairly new player with an independent streak who doesn't want some guidance, they figure it out or play a straight class after that. 

I will absolutely multi-class, if the character concept warrants it. My first 3E character was the dilettante son of a wealthy merchant. Mostly, this meant that he spent his time being charming and learning cool acrobatic tricks -- his main class was Rogue. But, he was also very learned which, in D&D, could be interpreted as having some arcane training. So, I took a level of Wizard at 3rd level or so. I generally ignored it, other than to check for magical traps and read arcane writings. But, it was definitely part of the character. In 5E, I'd probably do the same because the Thief sub-class would work better for the core concept than Arcane Trickster. There are other examples, but that's the one that came to mind first.

As might be apparent, I don't really look at the decision to multi-class from a "build strength" perspective. I look at it from a role-playing angle and assume the game will handle it unless something jumps out. Yes, there are some builds that are notably stronger or weaker than others. That's just the nature of any rules set with sufficient breadth. Many of those corner builds are hard to justify, role-play wise. I just don't get the infatuation with build optimization. Then again, I grew up with AD&D where we would throw 1st level characters and 10th level characters into the same group and a well-run low-level character could trounce a poorly run high-level character, regardless of the strength of the "build". That was the exception, mind you, but it still shows there's more reason to have faith in the play at the table than the math in the build.

I've got a character who will, by 20th level, have 7 classes. 

I have a Tabaxi Rogue, Monk Barbarian multiclass that use in AL and thinking of starting a Tabaxi Ranger Druid once I only need 100 xp or less to reach level 5 to play til all the other players are almost at level 5 so we can start tier 2 at the same time

Will see as time goes by how I level up my characters as we play the adventures out and more players join us on Wednesdays

I've either multi-classed or planned to with most of the characters I've played. Mostly its been a level dip with plans on a few more down the road. A level of rogue with my trickster cleric. A few levels of fighter with my totem barbarian. A few levels of wizard with my eldritch knight fighter.

I've hardly played a 5e game past 8th level so I can't say what they would have looked like at higher levels but my overall feeling is that 5e is fairly balanced to allow whatever you would like to play. I never felt that multi-classing provided any unfair advantage. In fact, most of the time there was a slight dip in power. Similar to 3.x in some ways and yet different in others. 

My main compliant is the multi-classing prerequisites. If you use point buy then it can be pretty hard to make certain combinations with some races. I have a mind to play a tiefling barbarian/warlock but the stats needed to do it justice are killer.